That's a really good point, Kelly - I hadn't even considered the unemployment benefits angle!
From what I understand, federal unemployment insurance works a bit differently than the private sector. Federal agencies don't pay unemployment taxes like private employers do. Instead, when a federal employee is laid off and successfully claims unemployment, the benefits are paid by the specific federal agency that employed them. Those payments come directly from each agency's budget, which means they're additional costs that would offset any supposed "savings" from the layoffs.
This is important because an agency like the VA that claims to be saving $98 million by cutting staff would actually save considerably less once you factor in the unemployment benefits they'll have to pay. Depending on the state where the employee files and their salary level, this could cost thousands per terminated employee.
I believe federal employees generally qualify for unemployment benefits when terminated through no fault of their own (like these DOGE layoffs). Even terminations that cite performance issues rather than misconduct would typically still qualify for unemployment benefits - poor performance alone usually isn't disqualifying. They typically wouldn't qualify only if they were fired for serious misconduct or if they quit voluntarily.
It's obviously a good thing that unemployment coverage exists for these DOGE casualties - people shouldn't lose their livelihoods because of political decisions. But as always, there's a deep irony here: taxpayers are now funding unemployment benefits for workers removed from necessary positions that will eventually need to be refilled... paid for by those same taxpayers. So we're essentially paying twice - once for the person not to work, and again to recruit and train their eventual replacement. Efficiency indeed! 🥲
Kelly, I’ve seen conflicting reports on if they’re allowed to claim unemployment, I’ve seen some say they can’t because they were terminated for performance reasons. I haven’t found anything to say one way or another. Have you found anything that shows they do? I am hoping they do bc it’s so unfair to them!
Yeah, I don't know. I'm not sure how unemployment works for federal jobs, but I know for state run unemployment claims, the person could still file and then the conpany (or in this case government) would have to provide evidence of the performance issues.
Amanda and Kelly, I looked into this because I was also curious! There's definitely confusion about this, but from what I found, federal employees terminated for performance reasons (rather than misconduct) typically can still collect unemployment benefits. Here's what I found:
The U.S. Department of Labor distinguishes between misconduct and performance issues in their unemployment guidelines. Poor performance alone is generally not considered disqualifying "misconduct" in most state unemployment systems. You can verify this on a given state's unemployment website - most explicitly state that performance-based terminations don't disqualify you from benefits.
For example, if you check the California Employment Development Department website, they explain that being fired for "inefficiency, poor performance, or inability to perform the job" typically doesn't disqualify someone from benefits. Similar language exists in most state guidelines.
For federal employees specifically, they file for unemployment through their state systems just like other workers, but the benefits are paid by the federal agency.
Another cost of firing people is them claiming unemployment benefits.
That's a really good point, Kelly - I hadn't even considered the unemployment benefits angle!
From what I understand, federal unemployment insurance works a bit differently than the private sector. Federal agencies don't pay unemployment taxes like private employers do. Instead, when a federal employee is laid off and successfully claims unemployment, the benefits are paid by the specific federal agency that employed them. Those payments come directly from each agency's budget, which means they're additional costs that would offset any supposed "savings" from the layoffs.
This is important because an agency like the VA that claims to be saving $98 million by cutting staff would actually save considerably less once you factor in the unemployment benefits they'll have to pay. Depending on the state where the employee files and their salary level, this could cost thousands per terminated employee.
I believe federal employees generally qualify for unemployment benefits when terminated through no fault of their own (like these DOGE layoffs). Even terminations that cite performance issues rather than misconduct would typically still qualify for unemployment benefits - poor performance alone usually isn't disqualifying. They typically wouldn't qualify only if they were fired for serious misconduct or if they quit voluntarily.
It's obviously a good thing that unemployment coverage exists for these DOGE casualties - people shouldn't lose their livelihoods because of political decisions. But as always, there's a deep irony here: taxpayers are now funding unemployment benefits for workers removed from necessary positions that will eventually need to be refilled... paid for by those same taxpayers. So we're essentially paying twice - once for the person not to work, and again to recruit and train their eventual replacement. Efficiency indeed! 🥲
Geez, that's even worse that it comes directly out of their budget!
Kelly, I’ve seen conflicting reports on if they’re allowed to claim unemployment, I’ve seen some say they can’t because they were terminated for performance reasons. I haven’t found anything to say one way or another. Have you found anything that shows they do? I am hoping they do bc it’s so unfair to them!
Yeah, I don't know. I'm not sure how unemployment works for federal jobs, but I know for state run unemployment claims, the person could still file and then the conpany (or in this case government) would have to provide evidence of the performance issues.
Amanda and Kelly, I looked into this because I was also curious! There's definitely confusion about this, but from what I found, federal employees terminated for performance reasons (rather than misconduct) typically can still collect unemployment benefits. Here's what I found:
The U.S. Department of Labor distinguishes between misconduct and performance issues in their unemployment guidelines. Poor performance alone is generally not considered disqualifying "misconduct" in most state unemployment systems. You can verify this on a given state's unemployment website - most explicitly state that performance-based terminations don't disqualify you from benefits.
For example, if you check the California Employment Development Department website, they explain that being fired for "inefficiency, poor performance, or inability to perform the job" typically doesn't disqualify someone from benefits. Similar language exists in most state guidelines.
For federal employees specifically, they file for unemployment through their state systems just like other workers, but the benefits are paid by the federal agency.
https://edd.ca.gov/en/uibdg/Misconduct_MC_300/
Timothy, thanks so much for the info!